Questions about the Arizona Suits

[JoeChartreuse]

I note two things about SC's post:

1) He never said that Ernie paid the settlement. He DID say that Ernie wouldn't get the discs that were SUPPOSED to be received by him in MAY 2010. Which means SC broke the settlement conditions- negating it. He DID say "Now, at that point, the case was over except for the formality of dismissal"

2) Being the Luddite that I am ( as well as not having any dealings with the courts lately), I could be completely wrong here. However, I have never heard of courts sending legal documents by e-mail only. Unlike registered mail, there's no way to confirm receipt by the party in question.

I read what Kurt posted, but only Ernie posted actual legal documentation or links to same. I'm afraid those documents hold more validity than anyone's personal post.

Any legal documentation from your end would be helpful, Kurt.

 

[KJSandman]

Oh crap... what are y'all gonna do with all those "Ernie Posters"? BWWAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA! (okay, i'm a little tipsy after a show, but really this is f'ing hilarious).

 

[Loneavenger]

Thank you Kurt for taking the time to post the facts, and Joe,to respond to your #1 - Ernie is in default for NOT PAYING THE AMOUNT DUE on his settlement, He still owes money, THAT is why he will not be receiving his disks, no fault of Sound Choice's. Long story short, Ernie needs to pay up on his settlement or he'll be right back in trouble all over again

 

[c. staley]

Interesting score to say the least.... No runs, a lot of "hits" and even more "errors."

Kurt Slep says;

6/1/10 – Kurt Slep signs the settlement agreement. We didn't respond to the motion to dismiss because his settlement made it moot.
However, Ernie did not sign the stipulation of dismissal that was required by the settlement agreement, so we couldn't file the dismissal, so due to his fault, it was left “open”.

for the non-legalese readers in the room, the word stipulation means "agreement." And usually it's an agreement by both parties.

I would be very interested to see this "stipulation of dismissal that was required by the settlement agreement" which was apparently authored by Harrington and/or Slep. It's most probably chock-full of "keep your mouth shut clauses" and other such goodies in which case, I can understand Ernie finding that distasteful and not agreeing to it.


He goes on to say:

10/26/10 - The judge issued a "show cause" order, saying she would dismiss the suit against McCuller if we didn't respond to the dismissal motion. However, we didn't receive the order (it was issued only through e-mail, and we didn't get it). If we had received it, we would have filed the notice of voluntary dismissal immediately.

Really? They would have filed a voluntary dismissal anyway? Without Ernie's signature? A voluntary dismissal is stipulated and signed by both parties. In any case, he claims he couldn't file the dismissal he wanted because it was a condition of the settlement, then says he would have filed the dismissal notice immediately had he known about it. WTF? Kurt admitted (above) that he was fully aware of Ernie's motion to dismiss and chose to ignore it because of the settlement.

I hope you had your waders on through SC's tirade folks, because as convincing as Slep's story may seem to you, it's actually getting pretty deep.

The judge in this case can do one of two things - but again, that will depend on some pretty fancy footwork and court motions by the Harrington gang.

The judge could:

#1. Grant a motion by SC to "vacate" the Court's order of the dismissal based on Ernie's motion, giving SC an opportunity dig themselves out of what appears to be a bottomless pit.

This would be the long shot. A reeeallly looonng shot closer to a miracle since that dismissal was ordered in November and SC did in fact know about it shortly after it was ordered and 2.5 MONTHS have already gone by since the order and about 8 MONTHS passed without any objection, notice of settlement, motion to enforce the settlement, or even a burp on their part when they knew a motion by Ernie had been filed. (Whether or not there was a settlement, there was STILL a valid motion before the court.)

#2. Simply say; "No." And the case would stay dismissed as is, with prejudice meaning it's dead forever.

I'm betting it's tanked..... read on....

HERE'S THE REAL KICKER QUESTIONS THOUGH:

Why did Sound Choice wait FOUR MONTHS to do nothing to close this case once a settlement was reached? (6-1 to 10-26) It is Sound Choice's attorney's responsibility to notify the court that a settlement had been reached in the best interest of his client. Because if the court knew there was a settlement, they would have NEVER issued a show cause or even made a ruling on Ernie's motion to dismiss.

I'm sorry, but simply walking away from your responsibility to the court because you think it's a "moot point" is simply "bad lawyering" in my book.

AND, why didn't Sound Choice file a motion to "enforce the settlement" which would have forced Ernie to sign the document (stipulation) or the court would have granted it without his signature. It all starts to smell really bad when you add this stuff up....

I'm not buying for one instant the story of "my dog ate my email" (kind of ironic ain't it?) because Harrington is on the "service list" of the court. The reason (I believe) that the court ignored his "notification that he never received the email notice" is that the court simply did not believe it. So it remains dead... forever.

Here's their excuse to the court from their filing:

Counsel for the Plaintiffs state to the Court that they have recently made
changes to their electronic mail system that may have temporarily interfered with
their ability to receive messages through the Clerk’s CM/ECF system. Counsel
have consulted the docket using PACER to determine whether any Notices of
Electronic Filing were missed, and none, other than the Order, have been missed.
Counsel’s apologies are respectfully tendered to the Court for this technical failure
and for the failure to provide the necessary response.
Respectfully submitted this the 17th day of November, 2010.
HARRINGTON CIPRIANI LLP

Good luck trying to convince a Federal Court that the plaintiff's attorney on the service list didn't get the notice. SC would now have to file a motion to vacate the court's dismissal based on Ernie's motion to dismiss... the chance of that actually flying is literally somewhere between absolute zero and a whisker above absolute zero when you take into account everything that happened prior to the ruling without notifying the court. Then they'd have to file a motion to enforce the settlement - provided of course the court let them even go that far.

SC screwed up big time and failed to notify the court of a settlement which was Harrington's responsibility as counsel to the plaintiff in the suit.

That was just 1 of the screw-ups. Trying to tie this settlement down after all this is going be as difficult as raising Harry Houdini from the dead... no matter what Kurt Slep says or attempts to justify at this point.

But there is a bright spot in all of this since Sound Choice's business model is asset recovery: It certainly appears to me that they have a really dandy case for malpractice against Harrington if they choose to pursue it.

And he calls Ernie stupid? .... yeah right.

oh, IN MY OPINION of course.... :winkpill:

 

[Diafel]

Just wondering why SC can get away with calling Ernie stupid.... hmmmmm

 

[KJSandman]

Same reason C. Staley can get away with calling CB "pirates".

 

[c. staley]

Same reason C. Staley can get away with calling CB "pirates".

That reason can only be the documented facts that prove it. (Need another copy?)

Anything else is speculative name-calling.

Call Ernie whatever you like, just remember that SC's lawsuit was dismissed without an attorney.

Do you credit that to Ernie or to mistakes by Harrington?

 

[KjAthena]

uummmm...Ernie bragged about getting his discs for $3000.00 and said he got them directly from Kurt...so he did receive them. Just to clear up any questions on that part. He did also say they were to be sent directly to him but I think that was an assumption on his part...but unless he posts his agreement I guess we will never know

 

[c. staley]

uummmm...Ernie bragged about getting his discs for $3000.00 and said he got them directly from Kurt...so he did receive them. Just to clear up any questions on that part. He did also say they were to be sent directly to him but I think that was an assumption on his part...but unless he posts his agreement I guess we will never know

No he didn't:

Posted by Kurt Slep:

And Ernie McCuller is in default of that agreement and ultimately will not be getting two sets of discs for $3000.

Why not have Kurt post the agreement?

 

[KjAthena]

No he didn't:

Posted by Kurt Slep:


Why not have Kurt post the agreement?

Chip when I am wrong...and it does happen I admit my errors. In this case please see the
following posts BY Ernie....I have changed to RED the statements in question... I think these
prove you are wrong and support my statements

1/29/201 at 9:26 am 01erniemac posted

Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits

I am sure if anyone would call Mr. Harrington and ask if he is still on the case, he would
say yes. because I have done it in the past. I asked him because little things he did or failed
to do told me otherwise. Perhaps he is a busy man and time is money. I just find it strange that
shortly after my last batch of posts, I was upset because I could not legally pick up a new
venue called "Fuzzy's" because my 2nd set of CDG-s was 2 months late. I came here to find
Mr. Slep to inquire about the late shipment. He told me in a personal e-mail that they were
shipped to his private Detective here in Phoenix and he was suppose to contact me and hold
the disks (hostage) until I disclosed or (Coughed Up) the locations of my venues so he could
inspect and see that each venue had the original disks in compliance with the settlement terms.
Mr. Slep did not think I would want to meet with his detective or cooperate with him because he
was the same person who originally served me for the lawsuit (1 day before it was to expire).
According to the personal e-mail, Mr. Slep wanted to "entice" me to meet with the detective so
he sent the disks to him instead. According to the detective on the phone, Mr. Slep also sent
copies of our statements from this web-site to keep a record of everything I tell you good people
. If you go back and read Mr.Slep's responses to my inquiries about the missing disks, he comes
off as bewildered and unknowing to all of you but he knew exactly what he was doing.
I responded back explaining I had no desire to meet with his detective and according to the
terms of the settlement, the disks were to be shipped directly to me. In other words, if he did
not get me the disks in a timely manor, I could have submitted another Motion To Dismiss for
violation of the Settlement Agreement, (which I thought was in place and waiting final approval
from the judge). The next weekend I received an e-mail from Mr. Slep saying he was in Phoenix
and I could meet with him in person to receive the disks. At first I agreed but I later thought
it was extremely unusual for the Plaintiff and Defendant to meet while he was suppose to be
represented by council Mr. James Harrington. At 2 AM I wrote an e-mail to Mr. Slep explaining
this issue. I was advised from an attorney friend of mine not to meet with him at 9 AM the next
morning. At 7AM, I received a lengthy voice mail from Mr. Harrington telling me to go ahead and
meet with his client Mr. Slep to resolve our issues. I found this as highly irregular for an
attorney to give the green light for me to meet with his client without his council being
present

1/26/20011 at 9:26 AM 01erniemac posted



Sorry but no, Joe is right as usual. I paid 4 payment of $500 towards a $51,000 settlement.
I also paid $3,000 (or 2 payments of $1,500) for 2 sets of their CDG-s so I could expand my
operations and create 2 new systems to increase my income and offset the monthly $500 payment
for the next 8 years. I was to become a "Worker Bee" for SC generating income for 8 years.
The economy here in Arizona is terrible and most venues now are scared to death of Karaoke
because of these lawsuits. I tried getting new shows but out of 106 attempts, nobody was
interested in karaoke or they didn't want to pay over $100 per show. My hosts make $75 per show.
A few have offered to go down to $60. Perhaps now I can tell perspective venue owners not to
worry because I have "Been there, Done that". I still have to compete with piracy and the larger
companies that are loyal to SC. I'm not making too many friends these days and my business
reputation and name are thoroughly trashed. I'm certain Mr. Slep is unhappy with me and I
expect his big lapdogs are getting there instructions on how to make my life even more unpleasant
.
On a positive note; Given that SC was charging other defendants $6,500 for each set of
CDG-s, I ended up ahead paying $3,000 for 2 sets that normally would cost $13,000.



. Because of this and and the failure of Mr. Harrington to respond to a Federal Judge to show good cause why my Motion to Dismiss shouldn't be granted after 10 days, I can't help but wonder if he is still on the case of all these lawsuits nation-wide. Is Mr. Slep looking for another attorney to take on this heavy load on a contingency bases?
No, I do not want or need a microphone, I simply feel that if there is 1 person out there falsely accused and going through Hell, I write this to offer a small ray of hope that this legal nightmare will hopefully come to an end for all of us.

Last edited by 01erniemac; 01-29-2011 at 09:37 AM.

as far as why I do not ask Mr. Kurt Slep to post the agreement...I have answered that in a prior post but will restate for you. Ernie is the one that keeps reffering to the agreement and asking all of us here to believe his interpritation of what it says. If he were to post it here for all to see the issues would be in black and white.

I have empathy for Ernie, it is my opinion that he is showing a extreme lack of knowledge.....as I have stated before I think he is his own worst enemy

 

[c. staley]

Athena,

Since Ernie says he did and Kurt says he won't and you think I'm wrong, I will simply ask you this:

Do you believe then that Kurt is lying and that Ernie does in fact have he abovementioned discs?

One of the two is not telling the truth and you seem to be believing Ernie.

 

[Diafel]

Chip when I am wrong...and it does happen I admit my errors. In this case please see the
following posts BY Ernie....I have changed to RED the statements in question... I think these
prove you are wrong and support my statements

1/29/201 at 9:26 am 01erniemac posted

Re: Questions about the Arizona Suits

I am sure if anyone would call Mr. Harrington and ask if he is still on the case, he would
say yes. because I have done it in the past. I asked him because little things he did or failed
to do told me otherwise. Perhaps he is a busy man and time is money. I just find it strange that
shortly after my last batch of posts, I was upset because I could not legally pick up a new
venue called "Fuzzy's" because my 2nd set of CDG-s was 2 months late. I came here to find
Mr. Slep to inquire about the late shipment. He told me in a personal e-mail that they were
shipped to his private Detective here in Phoenix and he was suppose to contact me and hold
the disks (hostage) until I disclosed or (Coughed Up) the locations of my venues so he could
inspect and see that each venue had the original disks in compliance with the settlement terms.
Mr. Slep did not think I would want to meet with his detective or cooperate with him because he
was the same person who originally served me for the lawsuit (1 day before it was to expire).
According to the personal e-mail, Mr. Slep wanted to "entice" me to meet with the detective so
he sent the disks to him instead. According to the detective on the phone, Mr. Slep also sent
copies of our statements from this web-site to keep a record of everything I tell you good people
. If you go back and read Mr.Slep's responses to my inquiries about the missing disks, he comes
off as bewildered and unknowing to all of you but he knew exactly what he was doing.
I responded back explaining I had no desire to meet with his detective and according to the
terms of the settlement, the disks were to be shipped directly to me. In other words, if he did
not get me the disks in a timely manor, I could have submitted another Motion To Dismiss for
violation of the Settlement Agreement, (which I thought was in place and waiting final approval
from the judge). The next weekend I received an e-mail from Mr. Slep saying he was in Phoenix
and I could meet with him in person to receive the disks. At first I agreed but I later thought
it was extremely unusual for the Plaintiff and Defendant to meet while he was suppose to be
represented by council Mr. James Harrington. At 2 AM I wrote an e-mail to Mr. Slep explaining
this issue. I was advised from an attorney friend of mine not to meet with him at 9 AM the next
morning. At 7AM, I received a lengthy voice mail from Mr. Harrington telling me to go ahead and
meet with his client Mr. Slep to resolve our issues. I found this as highly irregular for an
attorney to give the green light for me to meet with his client without his council being
present

1/26/20011 at 9:26 AM 01erniemac posted



Sorry but no, Joe is right as usual. I paid 4 payment of $500 towards a $51,000 settlement.
I also paid $3,000 (or 2 payments of $1,500) for 2 sets of their CDG-s so I could expand my
operations and create 2 new systems to increase my income and offset the monthly $500 payment
for the next 8 years. I was to become a "Worker Bee" for SC generating income for 8 years.
The economy here in Arizona is terrible and most venues now are scared to death of Karaoke
because of these lawsuits. I tried getting new shows but out of 106 attempts, nobody was
interested in karaoke or they didn't want to pay over $100 per show. My hosts make $75 per show.
A few have offered to go down to $60. Perhaps now I can tell perspective venue owners not to
worry because I have "Been there, Done that". I still have to compete with piracy and the larger
companies that are loyal to SC. I'm not making too many friends these days and my business
reputation and name are thoroughly trashed. I'm certain Mr. Slep is unhappy with me and I
expect his big lapdogs are getting there instructions on how to make my life even more unpleasant
.
On a positive note; Given that SC was charging other defendants $6,500 for each set of
CDG-s, I ended up ahead paying $3,000 for 2 sets that normally would cost $13,000.



. Because of this and and the failure of Mr. Harrington to respond to a Federal Judge to show good cause why my Motion to Dismiss shouldn't be granted after 10 days, I can't help but wonder if he is still on the case of all these lawsuits nation-wide. Is Mr. Slep looking for another attorney to take on this heavy load on a contingency bases?
No, I do not want or need a microphone, I simply feel that if there is 1 person out there falsely accused and going through Hell, I write this to offer a small ray of hope that this legal nightmare will hopefully come to an end for all of us.

Last edited by 01erniemac; 01-29-2011 at 09:37 AM.

as far as why I do not ask Mr. Kurt Slep to post the agreement...I have answered that in a prior post but will restate for you. Ernie is the one that keeps reffering to the agreement and asking all of us here to believe his interpritation of what it says. If he were to post it here for all to see the issues would be in black and white.

I have empathy for Ernie, it is my opinion that he is showing a extreme lack of knowledge.....as I have stated before I think he is his own worst enemy

And all of this proves what?
That Ernie said he was paying $3000 for his discs?
He never does say that he actually received them, now does he?
Even Kurt has stated that he won't be getting them.
That says to me, that he doesn't posses them at this point.
The way I see it, Ernie was making some payments, perhaps received SOME discs, but didn't get them ALL.
And again, the significance of which to you is what??

 

[KjAthena]

And all of this proves what?
That Ernie said he was paying $3000 for his discs?
He never does say that he actually received them, now does he?
Even Kurt has stated that he won't be getting them.
That says to me, that he doesn't posses them at this point.
The way I see it, Ernie was making some payments, perhaps received SOME discs, but didn't get them ALL.
And again, the significance of which to you is what??

Diafel,
You asked what does this all prove...well I was answering Chips post. The significance of
my post was to point out using Ernies own words Chip was wrong. Unless I am reading Ernies post
incorrectly he met with Kurt when Kurt was in arizona and received his discs(some or all I dont
know as Ernie did not clarify this in his posts). And if the last statment
starting with "on a positve note" is not bragging...what would you call it?. I personally hope
he did not receive the discs in question or if he did that "ultimately" they will end up costing
much more than $3000. he stated.

yesterday at 8:45 c.stanley posted
Questions about the Arizona Suits

Quote Originally Posted by KjAthena View Post
uummmm...Ernie bragged about getting his discs for $3000.00 and said he got them directly from
Kurt...so he did receive them. Just to clear up any questions on that part. He did also say
they were to be sent directly to him but I think that was an assumption on his part...but
unless he posts his agreement I guess we will never know

No he didn't:

Posted by Kurt Slep:
And Ernie McCuller is in default of that agreement and ultimately will not be getting two
sets of discs for $3000.

Why not have Kurt post the agreement?

Chip as far as questioning the statements differing between Kurt and Ernie...when I read Kurt's
statement I can see how it can be taken 2 diffrent ways. either
A. he received them but ultimately they will not be 3000.
or
B. he did not receive any/all the discs

As Ernie is not responding to the posts before you continue to travel down this path....why dont
one of you call him and ask ?. Based on what he has written here It is not worth my time and
breath to call him...I see tru the smoke he is blowing

 

[c. staley]

Chip as far as questioning the statements differing between Kurt and Ernie...when I read Kurt's
statement I can see how it can be taken 2 diffrent ways. either
A. he received them but ultimately they will not be 3000.
or
B. he did not receive any/all the discs

Then the choices are simple aren't they?

A: Kurt raises the price based on a default of the agreement and therefore repossesses this unpaid for merchandise. i.e. altered the agreement price. I find this difficult to believe because there are plenty of consumer protection laws that would prevent this kind of action. You can't make an agreement on a sale, deliver the product and THEN jack up the price based on a default. Example: You buy a car and miss a payment. The finance company can charge you a late fee or take back the car, but NOT change the price of the original agreement. You can sick collection experts on him and you can even repossess the unpaid-for goods but you can't increase the sale price, it's illegal.

B: He never delivered the merchandise for which some payment had apparently been made. i.e. accepted Ernie's money and then never delivered anything. (usually referred to as a "con job")

Since you're so sure that Ernie is simply blowing smoke, why don't you give Kurt a quick call and get it all straightened out because based on what Kurt's been posting about the dismissal, I'd put my money on the fact that Kurt is the one really blowing smoke. BOTH scenarios here are not looking good for Kurt.

 

[Loneavenger]

I think it's clear here that Ernie is currently in default of his settlement agreement. I don't think there's anything else here to discuss. I don't think Ernie's post was dishonest, i just believe he didn't fully understand the details of his court ruling , hence the holes in his story. Kurt, came and already filled in those holes, letting you know Ernie still needed to pay up because he is in default of a settlement, a legally binding settlement at that at this point. He did pay some money on that settlement so that court case has no effect on it. I see no more reason for argument here as i don't think anyone has presented anything dishonest, one just didn't fully understand.

 

[c. staley]

I think it's clear here that Ernie is currently in default of his settlement agreement. I don't think there's anything else here to discuss. I don't think Ernie's post was dishonest, i just believe he didn't fully understand the details of his court ruling , hence the holes in his story. Kurt, came and already filled in those holes, letting you know Ernie still needed to pay up because he is in default of a settlement, a legally binding settlement at that at this point. He did pay some money on that settlement so that court case has no effect on it. I see no more reason for argument here as i don't think anyone has presented anything dishonest, one just didn't fully understand.

I understand what you are saying, however, let's look at one other option here based on Kurt's statement that he has a settlement that pre-dates the court's ruling of a dismissal:

SC will need to literally go to court at this point to enforce their settlement and it is not -as Kurt would lead you to believe- as cut-and-dried as you would think and here's why; The settlement (from what I've read here so far) included a clause that required a "stipulated dismissal of the suit" be signed before the agreement could be considered complete. While SC might have the settlement signed, they never received the signed stipulation and they really did nothing about it either.

In the meantime, SC has accepted payment(s) for product from Ernie for which they have not delivered.

November rolls around and SC doesn't appear for a show cause hearing then 10 days later misses the deadline to answer the court (that's 2 out of 2 missed) and the court tosses the entire suit against Ernie in the trashcan.

The "settlement" that is the focus of this argument was generated in the first place as a settlement for a lawsuit that is in fact, no longer valid. The lawsuit has been invalidated and there is VERY GOOD POSSIBILITY that even now, a court would rule that the settlement in invalid and either order SC to return the money or to complete the sale at the agreed to price or tell Ernie to return the goods and SC to refund all payments. It won't matter to the court that the settlement pre-dated the dismissal because SC allowed the suit to be dismissed entirely. I very much doubt that SC would be able to successfully enforce this settlement at this point.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Thank you Kurt for taking the time to post the facts, and Joe,to respond to your #1 - Ernie is in default for NOT PAYING THE AMOUNT DUE on his settlement, He still owes money, THAT is why he will not be receiving his disks, no fault of Sound Choice's. Long story short, Ernie needs to pay up on his settlement or he'll be right back in trouble all over again

You forgot to mention #2- ONLY Ernie has provided any legal documentation. Kurt's post is nice, but completely unvalidated. As far as I can see, Kurt's actions regarding the discs completely invalidated the settlement- ALL the fault of SC, which would be cause for putting it aside- NO DEFAULT. Those discs should have been received in MAY 2010, BEFORE the dismissal- but Kurt broke the settlement by sending them to the P.I., instead of to Ernie, as the settlement stated- negating it. Ernie owes NOTHING, and SC blew the case.

 

[JoeChartreuse]

uummmm...Ernie bragged about getting his discs for $3000.00 and said he got them directly from Kurt...so he did receive them.

HUH? Ernie said he did NOT receive them,or finished paying for them, and KURT SAID he never will.. NO ONE- on either side- says he got them. What would make you think differently?!?!

 

[KjAthena]

You forgot to mention #2- ONLY Ernie has provided any legal documentation. Kurt's post is nice, but completely unvalidated. As far as I can see, Kurt's actions regarding the discs completely invalidated the settlement- ALL the fault of SC, which would be cause for putting it aside- NO DEFAULT. Those discs should have been received in MAY 2010, BEFORE the dismissal- but Kurt broke the settlement by sending them to the P.I., instead of to Ernie, as the settlement stated- negating it. Ernie owes NOTHING, and SC blew the case.

unless we see the settlement agreement Joe....we do not know if it said they would be sent directly to Ernie. In the settlement agreements I have seen nowhere does it state how/where the discs were to be delivered. It is my suspision(sp?) that this is another of Ernie's mistaken assumptions. But I could be wrong and the newer agreements could have changed since Ernie's. As far as why I felt he had received them it is due to Ernie's own post talking about Kurt's visit to Arizona to deliver them. Maybe Kurt will reply and confirm or deny the delivery after M.B. Or maybe Ernie will clarify the issue

 

[Loneavenger]

The only settlement agreements i have access to are the ones for the VA suits and i believe ours were different than the agreements in AZ. The point is , He signed a settlement agreement, did not pay in full. Meaning he has not yet paid for those disks that he WILL BE owed upon paying settlement in full. The Settlement in itself should have nullified the court case which is why Sound Choice didn't respond, they still have quite the case against Ernie so i don't think you've given enough thought to the " SC has blown it " statement. They have the evidence against ernie of his buying history etc....they will always have a case. The only reason this argument is so heated is because there are some here who would see it as some kind of victory if Sound Choice makes a mistake, and there are others who see it as a victory if Ernie is the one making mistakes. Why is this so important? Sound Choice is suing people, it will not stop. Chartbuster is now in the game as well, and soon to be Pop Hits Monthly. This is now the reality of the business we're in. If you're going to be so against these actions that it becomes the focus of your life ( as it is few a few here ) then i don't mean to be harsh but it might be time to get back to working on your own business and spending your time improving it. This is the nature of our businesses now, and as i've stated in the past i still see the positives outweighing the negatives in these suits. The way i see things regarding the suit we've been talking about, as things stand now it appears that it is Ernie that is at fault by not paying his settlement ( and sounds like he stopped paying before he found out about the court thing anyways ). I hate to see how worked up some here get over things that we may never know for sure. How bout a conversation about what you do to keep your weekly gigs " fresh "? Now back to your regularly scheduled arguments..........